logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.05.17 2016가단28872
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 11, 2002, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 26,00,000 to the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 25% per annum. However, the Defendant did not pay the above amount and interest or delay damages up to now.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff interest or delay damages from October 22, 2016 to KRW 118,985,650 and KRW 26,00,000 among them.

B. The amount that the plaintiff paid to the defendant is not a loan to the defendant.

Even if the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant is a loan, the claim had already been extinguished by the statute of limitations.

2. Determination

A. When there is a dispute between the parties as to the nature of the given amount, the plaintiff who seeks the return shall be responsible to prove it actively.

B. In the instant case, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 and the argument, the plaintiff is acknowledged to have paid KRW 26,00,000 (hereinafter "the instant money") to the defendant on July 11, 2002. However, the plaintiff did not prepare a loan certificate with respect to the instant money between the plaintiff and the defendant, ② the repayment period or interest, etc. of the instant money is not determined at all, ③ the plaintiff urged the defendant to pay the instant money only when it was around May 2014, 2016, the above facts alone are difficult to acknowledge that the instant money was loans, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. Even if the instant money is a loan, the extinctive prescription has expired for not less than ten years from the date of application for the instant payment order, as the instant money claim (hereinafter “instant claim”) had already been completed at the time of application for the instant payment order. In this respect, the Plaintiff’s above is also the Plaintiff.

arrow